Summary
This Appellate Division, Second Department decision affirms the Supreme Court's denial of a defendant physician's motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action. The court held that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because his expert's affirmations contained bare conclusory assertions that did not address specific allegations of negligence or refute conflicting deposition testimony. Consequently, triable issues of fact regarding both deviation from accepted standards of care and proximate cause remain for resolution at trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the medical malpractice claim
Holdings
- Summary judgment was denied because the defendant failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and because conflicting expert testimony created genuine issues of material fact.
Key quotations
“The elements of a medical malpractice cause of action are that the physician deviated or departed from accepted community standards of practice, and that such departure was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.” (at 1)
“A defendant moving for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action must demonstrate the absence of any triable issues of fact with respect to at least one of those elements.” (at 1)
“Conclusory statements set forth in an affirmation of a medical expert which do not refute or address the specific allegations of negligence made by the plaintiff in his or her complaint and bill of particulars are insufficient to make a prima facie showing that a defendant physician is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (at 1)
“Summary judgment is not appropriate in a medical malpractice action where the parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions, as such credibility issues can only be resolved by a jury.” (at 1)
Factual background
In June 2017 the defendant performed an endotracheal intubation on the plaintiff in preparation for sinus surgery. The plaintiff alleges the defendant was negligent in the procedure. The defendant could not recall key details of the intubation and offered only conclusory expert testimony.
Procedural history
The plaintiff sued for medical malpractice alleging negligent endotracheal intubation. The defendant moved for summary judgment; the trial court denied the motion. The defendant appealed.